Minimum wage rate and labors’ market prices.

[danielpalos]

Your point?

That the CEOs of the 350 largest corporations aren't the over 200,000 CEOs in the US.

I am not claiming they are. I am claiming the Richest get richer with tax cut economics, at the expense of the general welfare.

I am not claiming they are.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure),

Liar.

Not at all. I provided the link to clarify that inference. I am still claiming the Richest get richer at the expense of the general welfare.

You lied about your link.

You simply don't understand the concept. I merely quoted the link.

You lied about it. I understand the concept completely.

Right wing Hoax? I merely quoted an article.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your point?

That the CEOs of the 350 largest corporations aren't the over 200,000 CEOs in the US.

I am not claiming they are. I am claiming the Richest get richer with tax cut economics, at the expense of the general welfare.

I am not claiming they are.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure),

Liar.

Not at all. I provided the link to clarify that inference. I am still claiming the Richest get richer at the expense of the general welfare.

You lied about your link.

You simply don't understand the concept. I merely quoted the link.

You lied about it. I understand the concept completely.

Right wing Hoax? I merely quoted an article.

You misquoted the article.

What vital piece of info did you omit?

 

[Wyatt earp]

From 1979 to 2018, net productivity rose 69.6 percent,

How much more productive are unskilled workers compared to 40 years ago?

The "valuation of that productivity".

$7.25

Because that is the Statutory minimum wage or because of productivity? Right wingers want no minimum wage laws at all, just like in the good old days.

Exactly the minimum wage laws are racist

 

[Staidhup]

Minimum wage arguments are nonsense. You can not legislate prosperity. Is a degree in psychology, sociology, history, literature, ethnic studies, drama, art history, political science, women’s studies....worth more than what one is willing to pay for these services? No, there simply is no application in the real world outside of academia. So if you majored in such fields then expect to start at the very bottom and to work your way up.
Employers hire people for their potential added value capacity nothing less. No skills no job, no work, then vote to have the government take care of your sorry ass, otherwise prove yourself in the real world.

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, public assistance, Social Security retirement and other pensions, unemployment and disability insurance, and public assistance, are all among the benefits included within family incomes. Wages, dividends, interest, royalties, capital gains are among the income sources within family incomes.
CBO’s reported increases of family incomes due to increases of the minimum wage rate fully reflect replacements of other benefits and incomes with net increases of wage incomes for reduced social welfare benefits and other incomes contributing to families’ incomes.

CBO projections for families’ less than three times the poverty thresholds for their families’ sizes, due to the minimum wage rate having been gradually increased to reach $15 per hour in 2025, experience purchasing power increases ranging from only 5.2% to 3.4%.
That implies that those families wage income increases due to the minimum rate increasing substantially more than a range of 5.2% to 3.4%. Wage incomes are effectively almost the entire income sources of the working poor. Within most, if not all state’s, extremely little social welfare benefits are granted to their working-poor and working-poor dependents.

Eliminating USA’s minimum wage rate laws would be net detrimental to USA’s working-poor earning within the lowest-wage brackets of our jobs’ wage rates. For those employees and their dependents, the minimum rate effects upon their jobs’ rates range from critical to substantial. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

Your point?

That the CEOs of the 350 largest corporations aren't the over 200,000 CEOs in the US.

I am not claiming they are. I am claiming the Richest get richer with tax cut economics, at the expense of the general welfare.

I am not claiming they are.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure),

Liar.

Not at all. I provided the link to clarify that inference. I am still claiming the Richest get richer at the expense of the general welfare.

You lied about your link.

You simply don't understand the concept. I merely quoted the link.

You lied about it. I understand the concept completely.

Right wing Hoax? I merely quoted an article.

You misquoted the article.

What vital piece of info did you omit?

I didn't omit anything. You simply didn't understand the paragraph. Right Wing Hoaxster.

 

[danielpalos]

Minimum wage arguments are nonsense. You can not legislate prosperity. Is a degree in psychology, sociology, history, literature, ethnic studies, drama, art history, political science, women’s studies....worth more than what one is willing to pay for these services? No, there simply is no application in the real world outside of academia. So if you majored in such fields then expect to start at the very bottom and to work your way up.
Employers hire people for their potential added value capacity nothing less. No skills no job, no work, then vote to have the government take care of your sorry ass, otherwise prove yourself in the real world.

lol. Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. The whole point of Congress commanding fiscal policy is about providing for the general prosperity via providing for the general welfare.

Worth is fixed by federal Standards for the Union by Congress. Capitalists are simply price takers not price makers regarding Statutory laws. Capitalists operating on a for-profit basis are required to seek a profit by law.

Micro-economics has nothing to do with the general welfare of the Union.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot, public assistance, Social Security retirement and other pensions, unemployment and disability insurance, and public assistance, are all among the benefits included within family incomes. Wages, dividends, interest, royalties, capital gains are among the income sources within family incomes.
CBO’s reported increases of family incomes due to increases of the minimum wage rate fully reflect replacements of other benefits and incomes with net increases of wage incomes for reduced social welfare benefits and other incomes contributing to families’ incomes.

CBO projections for families’ less than three times the poverty thresholds for their families’ sizes, due to the minimum wage rate having been gradually increased to reach $15 per hour in 2025, experience purchasing power increases ranging from only 5.2% to 3.4%.
That implies that those families wage income increases due to the minimum rate increasing substantially more than a range of 5.2% to 3.4%. Wage incomes are effectively almost the entire income sources of the working poor. Within most, if not all state’s, extremely little social welfare benefits are granted to their working-poor and working-poor dependents.

Eliminating USA’s minimum wage rate laws would be net detrimental to USA’s working-poor earning within the lowest-wage brackets of our jobs’ wage rates. For those employees and their dependents, the minimum rate effects upon their jobs’ rates range from critical to substantial. Respectfully, Supposn

CBO projections for families’ less than three times the poverty thresholds for their families’ sizes, due to the minimum wage rate having been gradually increased to reach $15 per hour in 2025, experience purchasing power increases ranging from only 5.2% to 3.4%.

Yes, that's what they project from increasing the FMW more than 100%.

That implies that those families wage income increases due to the minimum rate increasing substantially more than a range of 5.2% to 3.4%.

Does it?

Wage incomes are effectively almost the entire income sources of the working poor.

Do you have anything a little more concrete to backup your assertion?

Eliminating USA’s minimum wage rate laws would be net detrimental to USA’s working-poor earning within the lowest-wage brackets of our jobs’ wage rates.

Detrimental by how much?

For those employees and their dependents, the minimum rate effects upon their jobs’ rates range from critical to substantial.

Your claim sounds very subjective.
In terms of income, what's the range from critical-substantial?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your point?

That the CEOs of the 350 largest corporations aren't the over 200,000 CEOs in the US.

I am not claiming they are. I am claiming the Richest get richer with tax cut economics, at the expense of the general welfare.

I am not claiming they are.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure),

Liar.

Not at all. I provided the link to clarify that inference. I am still claiming the Richest get richer at the expense of the general welfare.

You lied about your link.

You simply don't understand the concept. I merely quoted the link.

You lied about it. I understand the concept completely.

Right wing Hoax? I merely quoted an article.

You misquoted the article.

What vital piece of info did you omit?

I didn't omit anything. You simply didn't understand the paragraph. Right Wing Hoaxster.

I didn't omit anything.

You're lying. The summary you linked was almost 400 words.
You pasted about 10% of that. You omitted about 90%.

 

[Supposn]

CBO projections for families’ less than three times the poverty thresholds for their families’ sizes, due to the minimum wage rate having been gradually increased to reach $15 per hour in 2025, experience purchasing power increases ranging from only 5.2% to 3.4%. ...
... That implies that those families wage income increases due to the minimum rate increasing substantially more than a range of 5.2% to 3.4%.

Does it?

ToddsterPatriot, the last time you correctly challenged my math, I reworked the figures to both of our satisfaction and they consequentially much further supported my justification of minimum wage rate laws. I again thank you for that contribution to this thread. Please critique this following explanation:

I’m supposing that minimum wage rates directly only support low-wage rates. CBO reports provide statistics on minimum rate increases consequential effects upon families’ net total incomes rather than upon their net wage incomes. Thus, if due to extents of minimum wage increases replacing the lowest income family’s unemployment and/or public assistance benefits, the 5.2% increase of their total incomes would imply a much greater proportional increase of only their wage incomes.
Please do the math. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Wage incomes are effectively almost the entire income sources of the working poor.
Do you have anything a little more concrete to backup your assertion?

Eliminating USA’s minimum wage rate laws would be net detrimental to USA’s working-poor earning within the lowest-wage brackets of our jobs’ wage rates.
Detrimental by how much?

For those employees and their dependents, the minimum rate effects upon their jobs’ rates range from critical to substantial.
Your claim sounds very subjective. In terms of income, what's the range from critical-substantial?

Toddsterpatriot, in most if not all US states, the income threshold for public assistance such as Medicaid or food stamps is a drastically poor degree of incomes’ purchasing powers. Most people and their dependents that can well be defined as members of their state’s’ who can be described as their state’s working -poor, cannot qualify for assistance in their states and their entire incomes are generally derived from wages. Do you have any good reason to believe otherwise?

What if any portion of the working-poors' incomes would you consider to be ranging from critical to substantial? Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

Your point?

That the CEOs of the 350 largest corporations aren't the over 200,000 CEOs in the US.

I am not claiming they are. I am claiming the Richest get richer with tax cut economics, at the expense of the general welfare.

I am not claiming they are.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure),

Liar.

Not at all. I provided the link to clarify that inference. I am still claiming the Richest get richer at the expense of the general welfare.

You lied about your link.

You simply don't understand the concept. I merely quoted the link.

You lied about it. I understand the concept completely.

Right wing Hoax? I merely quoted an article.

You misquoted the article.

What vital piece of info did you omit?

I didn't omit anything. You simply didn't understand the paragraph. Right Wing Hoaxster.

I didn't omit anything.

You're lying. The summary you linked was almost 400 words.
You pasted about 10% of that. You omitted about 90%.

I try to incorporate fair use practices whenever I have the presence of mind to do so.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CBO projections for families’ less than three times the poverty thresholds for their families’ sizes, due to the minimum wage rate having been gradually increased to reach $15 per hour in 2025, experience purchasing power increases ranging from only 5.2% to 3.4%. ...
... That implies that those families wage income increases due to the minimum rate increasing substantially more than a range of 5.2% to 3.4%.

Does it?

ToddsterPatriot, the last time you correctly challenged my math, I reworked the figures to both of our satisfaction and they consequentially much further supported my justification of minimum wage rate laws. I again thank you for that contribution to this thread. Please critique this following explanation:

I’m supposing that minimum wage rates directly only support low-wage rates. CBO reports provide statistics on minimum rate increases consequential effects upon families’ net total incomes rather than upon their net wage incomes. Thus, if due to extents of minimum wage increases replacing the lowest income family’s unemployment and/or public assistance benefits, the 5.2% increase of their total incomes would imply a much greater proportional increase of only their wage incomes.
Please do the math. Respectfully, Supposn

and they consequentially much further supported my justification of minimum wage rate laws.

Refresh my memory.
Give me a link to the post where you feel you did that.
Thanks!

Thus, if due to extents of minimum wage increases replacing the lowest income family’s unemployment and/or public assistance benefits, the 5.2% increase of their total incomes would imply a much greater proportional increase of only their wage incomes.

Your new theory is that increasing the minimum wage by over 100% (over time) ends up reducing low end government benefits on the order of 90% plus of the increased wage?

Damn! That's one hell of a marginal tax rate!!!

I wonder if you can find any studies to support your theory?

Please do the math.

Income at $7.25 wage $1450
Benefits $1450
Total $2900

Income at $15 wage $3000
Benefits $50
Total $3050

Increase $150/$2900~5.2%

Marginal rate on $1550 increase in wages......90.3%, based only on the loss of benefits.
With the increased payroll and income tax, the marginal rate would easily top 100%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wage incomes are effectively almost the entire income sources of the working poor.
Do you have anything a little more concrete to backup your assertion?

Eliminating USA’s minimum wage rate laws would be net detrimental to USA’s working-poor earning within the lowest-wage brackets of our jobs’ wage rates.
Detrimental by how much?

For those employees and their dependents, the minimum rate effects upon their jobs’ rates range from critical to substantial.
Your claim sounds very subjective. In terms of income, what's the range from critical-substantial?

Toddsterpatriot, in most if not all US states, the income threshold for public assistance such as Medicaid or food stamps is a drastically poor degree of incomes’ purchasing powers. Most people and their dependents that can well be defined as members of their state’s’ who can be described as their state’s working -poor, cannot qualify for assistance in their states and their entire incomes are generally derived from wages. Do you have any good reason to believe otherwise?

What if any portion of the working-poors' incomes would you consider to be ranging from critical to substantial? Respectfully, Supposn

What if any portion of the working-poors' incomes would you consider to be ranging from critical to substantial?

It's your claim.
What is the critical dollar amount added to income by the minimum wage?
What is the substantiall dollar amount added to income by the minimum wage?

We're talking about numbers here, provide some numbers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your point?

That the CEOs of the 350 largest corporations aren't the over 200,000 CEOs in the US.

I am not claiming they are. I am claiming the Richest get richer with tax cut economics, at the expense of the general welfare.

I am not claiming they are.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure),

Liar.

Not at all. I provided the link to clarify that inference. I am still claiming the Richest get richer at the expense of the general welfare.

You lied about your link.

You simply don't understand the concept. I merely quoted the link.

You lied about it. I understand the concept completely.

Right wing Hoax? I merely quoted an article.

You misquoted the article.

What vital piece of info did you omit?

I didn't omit anything. You simply didn't understand the paragraph. Right Wing Hoaxster.

I didn't omit anything.

You're lying. The summary you linked was almost 400 words.
You pasted about 10% of that. You omitted about 90%.

I try to incorporate fair use practices whenever I have the presence of mind to do so.

Yes, I caught your lie by omission immediately.

 

[danielpalos]

Your point?

That the CEOs of the 350 largest corporations aren't the over 200,000 CEOs in the US.

I am not claiming they are. I am claiming the Richest get richer with tax cut economics, at the expense of the general welfare.

I am not claiming they are.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure),

Liar.

Not at all. I provided the link to clarify that inference. I am still claiming the Richest get richer at the expense of the general welfare.

You lied about your link.

You simply don't understand the concept. I merely quoted the link.

You lied about it. I understand the concept completely.

Right wing Hoax? I merely quoted an article.

You misquoted the article.

What vital piece of info did you omit?

I didn't omit anything. You simply didn't understand the paragraph. Right Wing Hoaxster.

I didn't omit anything.

You're lying. The summary you linked was almost 400 words.
You pasted about 10% of that. You omitted about 90%.

I try to incorporate fair use practices whenever I have the presence of mind to do so.

Yes, I caught your lie by omission immediately.

Nothing but red herring on your part.

Rich CEOs have gotten Richer while poor CEOs have not done as well, is what you are saying.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nothing but red herring on your part.

Right.

Every time I point out your lies, it's a red herring.

 

[danielpalos]

Nothing but red herring on your part.

Right.

Every time I point out your lies, it's a red herring.

Not my lie. I quoted the first paragraph, nothing more. It is a red herring for you to claim I am resorting to fallacy to try to cover for your lack of argument.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nothing but red herring on your part.

Right.

Every time I point out your lies, it's a red herring.

Not my lie. I quoted the first paragraph, nothing more. It is a red herring for you to claim I am resorting to fallacy to try to cover for your lack of argument.

Not my lie.

Omitting the highlighted portion.......

Makes it your lie.

 

[Supposn]

... Thus, if due to extents of minimum wage increases replacing the lowest income family’s unemployment and/or public assistance benefits, the 5.2% increase of their total incomes would imply a much greater proportional increase of only their wage incomes. ... Please do the math.

Your new theory is that increasing the minimum wage by over 100% (over time) ends up reducing low end government benefits on the order of 90% plus of the increased wage?
Damn! That's one hell of a marginal tax rate!!!

I wonder if you can find any studies to support your theory? ...
... Income at $7.25 wage $1450
Benefits $1450
Total $2900

Income at $15 wage $3000
Benefits $50
Total $3050

Increase $150/$2900~5.2%

Marginal rate on $1550 increase in wages......90.3%, based only on the loss of benefits.
With the increased payroll and income tax, the marginal rate would easily top 100%.

ToddsterPatriot, minimum wage rates directly support job’s low-wage rates and less directly those workers’ wage incomes.

CBO projected the minimum rate being gradually increased until it reaches $15 per hour in 2025. They projected family’s incomes that are less than three times their family sizes’ poverty thresholds would have increased their incomes by a range of 5.2% to 3.4%. To the extents that any of those family’s unemployment insurance and other social welfare benefits were replaced by additional wage incomes, those families wage incomes must have increased by a range much greater than 5.2% to 3.4%

You’re not pretending to be foolishly ignorant and less logical? You cannot or will not do the math?